"For example, if you’re a legitimate buyer purchasing movies off iTunes, you can easily stream your media to your legitimately purchased Apple TV. If you’re a pirate, you’d have to go through roundabout programs and hardware to re-create the experience."Cybargs wrote:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/ … n-reasons/CrazeD wrote:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/7-reasons-to-avoid-windows-7/
At first I was like, wow this guy is a dumbass.
Then I read this, and it all became clear:...but from my own perspective as a long-time Mac user,
He wrote that two days before.
lol, you are very biased then. I dunno why you are so stubborn when it comes to Vista. Vista is most definitely not the most stable version of Windows.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Vista is by far most stable Windows I have ever used, not once has it BSOD'd in these years. And I have used heck lot of Windows'es.CrazeD wrote:
Because your hardware more than compensates for the shittyness of Vista.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I am using both Vista x64 Ultimate and Win 7 x64 Ultimate and quite frankly I cannot tell shit difference apart from 7 looking more transparent (glass like).
It is a very stable version though. I've had very little problems and most were due to overclocking so those don't really count. Most issues with any version of windows (that i've seen) are either user errors or driver issues, neither of which is a windows problem.CrazeD wrote:
lol, you are very biased then. I dunno why you are so stubborn when it comes to Vista. Vista is most definitely not the most stable version of Windows.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Vista is by far most stable Windows I have ever used, not once has it BSOD'd in these years. And I have used heck lot of Windows'es.CrazeD wrote:
Because your hardware more than compensates for the shittyness of Vista.
I am very biased? Do I fucking work for MS? I have used MS operating systems since DOS, but Vista has not BSOD'd once. Now please tell me how can you be more stable than rock solid?CrazeD wrote:
lol, you are very biased then. I dunno why you are so stubborn when it comes to Vista. Vista is most definitely not the most stable version of Windows.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Vista is by far most stable Windows I have ever used, not once has it BSOD'd in these years. And I have used heck lot of Windows'es.CrazeD wrote:
Because your hardware more than compensates for the shittyness of Vista.
I am stubborn because I don't want ppl put words in my mouth and I don't talk shit when it is not so.
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
There, fixed.CrazeD wrote:
FUD.
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
Why is this still in EE. Morelike tech..
The first thing that strikes me is how old the blog is. 20th August. When did Win7 come out?
The first thing that strikes me is how old the blog is. 20th August. When did Win7 come out?
While I would agree on things like Lightroom, Photoshop, etc.. Adobe seem to have epically failed at coding flash. Not only are the left/right click on youtube videos still inverted, but a single video chews up enough processor power to get my macbook's fans running at full speed.burnzz wrote:
we use Dell 'craptops', pre-installed with XP. 40% of the programs we use won't run on Vista (mostly hydrology and structures stuff).
we have one Dell workstation with 24gb ram, dual xeon procs, nVidia 1.5gb Qudro fx. built for a particular surveying 3d modeler.
and three Macs.
STFU with your 'stability' this or that, you have no real world experience. the Macs are for what they do - every adobe program runs flawlessly on them.
it's getting old, the way people use "absolute pronouncements" and claim to be the authority on all things all things.
No, he is not. Vista is incredibly stable, especially compared to XP. I ran Vista for a year without formatting on my laptop (a 1.83GHz C2D with 2GB RAM, on which it ran very smoothly). During that year, I experienced one bluescreen on it, and that was due to the WLAN card getting knocked out of its slot.CrazeD wrote:
lol, you are very biased then. I dunno why you are so stubborn when it comes to Vista. Vista is most definitely not the most stable version of Windows.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Vista is by far most stable Windows I have ever used, not once has it BSOD'd in these years. And I have used heck lot of Windows'es.CrazeD wrote:
Because your hardware more than compensates for the shittyness of Vista.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
Could say the same for XP for the past 5 years. I'll talk to you in 4 years.Freezer7Pro wrote:
No, he is not. Vista is incredibly stable, especially compared to XP. I ran Vista for a year without formatting on my laptop (a 1.83GHz C2D with 2GB RAM, on which it ran very smoothly). During that year, I experienced one bluescreen on it, and that was due to the WLAN card getting knocked out of its slot.CrazeD wrote:
lol, you are very biased then. I dunno why you are so stubborn when it comes to Vista. Vista is most definitely not the most stable version of Windows.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Vista is by far most stable Windows I have ever used, not once has it BSOD'd in these years. And I have used heck lot of Windows'es.
lawl.
If you want everybody to have the same computer experience, go buy a mac.
Of course people will have different experiences with Windows, 1) they're running different hardware 2) they're running different software (i.e. widowblinds, ultramon, etc. etc.) 3) They have a different user style.
If you want everybody to have the same computer experience, go buy a mac.
Of course people will have different experiences with Windows, 1) they're running different hardware 2) they're running different software (i.e. widowblinds, ultramon, etc. etc.) 3) They have a different user style.
EE (hats
You've had the same computer for five years?!.Sup wrote:
Could say the same for XP for the past 5 years. I'll talk to you in 4 years.Freezer7Pro wrote:
No, he is not. Vista is incredibly stable, especially compared to XP. I ran Vista for a year without formatting on my laptop (a 1.83GHz C2D with 2GB RAM, on which it ran very smoothly). During that year, I experienced one bluescreen on it, and that was due to the WLAN card getting knocked out of its slot.CrazeD wrote:
lol, you are very biased then. I dunno why you are so stubborn when it comes to Vista. Vista is most definitely not the most stable version of Windows.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
Still have it. More than one.Freezer7Pro wrote:
You've had the same computer for five years?!.Sup wrote:
Could say the same for XP for the past 5 years. I'll talk to you in 4 years.Freezer7Pro wrote:
No, he is not. Vista is incredibly stable, especially compared to XP. I ran Vista for a year without formatting on my laptop (a 1.83GHz C2D with 2GB RAM, on which it ran very smoothly). During that year, I experienced one bluescreen on it, and that was due to the WLAN card getting knocked out of its slot.
Now I'd like to know why you haven't reformatted in all that time..Sup wrote:
Still have it. More than one.Freezer7Pro wrote:
You've had the same computer for five years?!.Sup wrote:
Could say the same for XP for the past 5 years. I'll talk to you in 4 years.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
Because its an HTPC. I don't install stuff on it cept for audio, video players, other multimedia related, etc.. And the other one is just old, I stopped using it couple months ago when hardware started to fail.Freezer7Pro wrote:
Now I'd like to know why you haven't reformatted in all that time..Sup wrote:
Still have it. More than one.Freezer7Pro wrote:
You've had the same computer for five years?!
Ah. That's quite another thing than using a computer for more everyday stuff..Sup wrote:
Because its an HTPC. I don't install stuff on it cept for audio, video players, other multimedia related, etc.. And the other one is just old, I stopped using it couple months ago when hardware started to fail.Freezer7Pro wrote:
Now I'd like to know why you haven't reformatted in all that time..Sup wrote:
Still have it. More than one.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
Since when does stability revolve around BSOD's? Most of the time BSOD's are hardware faults.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I am very biased? Do I fucking work for MS? I have used MS operating systems since DOS, but Vista has not BSOD'd once. Now please tell me how can you be more stable than rock solid?CrazeD wrote:
lol, you are very biased then. I dunno why you are so stubborn when it comes to Vista. Vista is most definitely not the most stable version of Windows.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Vista is by far most stable Windows I have ever used, not once has it BSOD'd in these years. And I have used heck lot of Windows'es.
I am stubborn because I don't want ppl put words in my mouth and I don't talk shit when it is not so.
EDIT:
Once again, who gives a shit about BSOD's? My XP never BSOD's either. Big deal.Freezer7Pro wrote:
No, he is not. Vista is incredibly stable, especially compared to XP. I ran Vista for a year without formatting on my laptop (a 1.83GHz C2D with 2GB RAM, on which it ran very smoothly). During that year, I experienced one bluescreen on it, and that was due to the WLAN card getting knocked out of its slot.CrazeD wrote:
lol, you are very biased then. I dunno why you are so stubborn when it comes to Vista. Vista is most definitely not the most stable version of Windows.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Vista is by far most stable Windows I have ever used, not once has it BSOD'd in these years. And I have used heck lot of Windows'es.
Last edited by CrazeD (2009-11-28 13:57:55)
Vista and 7 are more stable than XP. They're sometimes a bit buggy and bloated, but they're more stable.
Stability is about the computer managing not to crash. BSODs are the computer crashing. Fewer BSODs mean greater stability - more or less.CrazeD wrote:
Since when does stability revolve around BSOD's?
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-11-28 15:03:18)
On who's opinion is this based? So if you have gotten less BSOD's on Vista than XP that means XP is less stable in general or just your install and driver corruption combo is unstable?Bertster7 wrote:
Vista and 7 are more stable than XP. They're sometimes a bit buggy and bloated, but they're more stable.Stability is about the computer managing not to crash. BSODs are the computer crashing. Fewer BSODs mean greater stability - more or less.CrazeD wrote:
Since when does stability revolve around BSOD's?
.Sup wrote:
On who's opinion is this based? So if you have gotten less BSOD's on Vista than XP that means XP is less stable in general or just your install and driver corruption combo is unstable?Bertster7 wrote:
Vista and 7 are more stable than XP. They're sometimes a bit buggy and bloated, but they're more stable.Stability is about the computer managing not to crash. BSODs are the computer crashing. Fewer BSODs mean greater stability - more or less.CrazeD wrote:
Since when does stability revolve around BSOD's?
EE (hats
If stability is based on how many BSOD's you get, then there isn't any difference at all...seeings I never get BSOD's no matter what OS I'm on. Because my hardware is stable. Most BSOD's are hardware related, not software.Bertster7 wrote:
Vista and 7 are more stable than XP. They're sometimes a bit buggy and bloated, but they're more stable.
I like Vista, but I'm also aware that it's shitty.
W7 Ftw!!!!!
You are misinformed.CrazeD wrote:
If stability is based on how many BSOD's you get, then there isn't any difference at all...seeings I never get BSOD's no matter what OS I'm on. Because my hardware is stable. Most BSOD's are hardware related, not software.Bertster7 wrote:
Vista and 7 are more stable than XP. They're sometimes a bit buggy and bloated, but they're more stable.
I like Vista, but I'm also aware that it's shitty.
That's one of the things where Vista/7 rock. If your hellishly unstable Nvidia drivers crash, you just get a black screen for a couple of seconds, followed by a popup saying the driver crashed. Compared to XP, which simply gives you a blue screen, I think that's quite a bit better..Sup wrote:
...your install and driver corruption combo is unstable?Bertster7 wrote:
Vista and 7 are more stable than XP. They're sometimes a bit buggy and bloated, but they're more stable.Stability is about the computer managing not to crash. BSODs are the computer crashing. Fewer BSODs mean greater stability - more or less.CrazeD wrote:
Since when does stability revolve around BSOD's?
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
Nforce chipset motherboards should all be killed with fire. There is no ending to stability issues with them. Intel chipsets FTW and back to enjoying stability.
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
I've gotten a couple of blue screens in 7. But I agree when driver "only" crashes that you don't have to restart.Freezer7Pro wrote:
That's one of the things where Vista/7 rock. If your hellishly unstable Nvidia drivers crash, you just get a black screen for a couple of seconds, followed by a popup saying the driver crashed. Compared to XP, which simply gives you a blue screen, I think that's quite a bit better..Sup wrote:
...your install and driver corruption combo is unstable?Bertster7 wrote:
Vista and 7 are more stable than XP. They're sometimes a bit buggy and bloated, but they're more stable.
Stability is about the computer managing not to crash. BSODs are the computer crashing. Fewer BSODs mean greater stability - more or less.
I completely agree, i was glad to be rid of mineGC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Nforce chipset motherboards should all be killed with fire. There is no ending to stability issues with them. Intel chipsets FTW and back to enjoying stability.